00:27:04 melvster1 has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) 03:40:42 kennyluck has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 03:41:36 kennyluck (~kennyluck@119.161.158.96) has joined #dig 05:31:06 timbl has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 05:32:00 timbl (~timbl@c-24-62-225-11.hsd1.ma.comcast.net) has joined #dig 07:50:21 rszeno (~rszeno@79.114.103.154) has joined #dig 08:11:15 tyteen4a03 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 08:11:33 tyteen4a03 (tyteen4a03@n218250225173.netvigator.com) has joined #dig 08:41:54 jmvanel (~jmv@82.96.114.78.rev.sfr.net) has joined #dig 08:55:48 kennyluck has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 08:56:06 kennyluck (~kennyluck@119.161.158.96) has joined #dig 11:01:18 melvster (~melvin@p4FF97A59.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined #dig 11:04:46 melvster1 (~melvin@p4FF9629C.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined #dig 11:05:24 melvster has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) 11:25:45 timbl, fyi: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Nov/0079.html and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Nov/0043.html 11:26:27 (push for triple ::= term term term . term ::= IRI | blanknode | literal .) in rdf 11:40:50 danbri (~danbri@80.71.30.113) has joined #dig 12:24:27 RalphS (RSwick@30-7-118.wireless.csail.mit.edu) has joined #dig 12:38:48 webr3: I wonder what a Literal in predicate position would mean, but otherwise it is interesting that they are looking at this 12:39:09 betehess: would find that interesting - looks like Banana is ahead of time 12:43:48 mind you webr3 it looks like they can't do anything as they are restricted by their charter 12:46:38 perhaps they should change their charter 13:01:09 jmvanel has quit (Remote host closed the connection) 13:18:16 bblfish, http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#literalnote 13:53:42 bblfish, it's only for inference rules, non normative, and in a note.. i.e. recognize they (generalized triples) are needed and need to be mentioned somwhere, but don't actually allow them anywhere over the wire / in a media type / abstract syntax etc 13:54:14 ah ok. 13:54:17 makes sense. 13:54:28 yes, for inference you definintely need them 13:54:42 bblfish, PatH made an interesting observation the other day, (roughly) that in all the cases he looked at through inference, bnode+iri+literal ended up in subject and object positions, and only bnodes+iris ended up in p 13:54:44 that's why betehess' Banana RDF allows it 13:55:05 yes I'd agree :-) 13:55:07 likewise why the rdf-interfaces and my own tools allow it 13:55:13 literals in p does not make sense 13:55:42 well I think it might in the future when we can work out clear RDF semantics for natural languages 13:55:45 unsure if that's a reason to preclude them, but in subject and bnode in predicate would make a world of difference 13:55:55 "knows"@en == foaf:knows 13:56:24 ( but that would be very shaky) 13:56:47 bblfish: we have a URI in the predicate position https://github.com/w3c/banana-rdf/blob/master/rdf/src/main/scala/RDFOps.scala#L26 13:56:52 you can do many shay things in rdf, including { foaf:knows owl:sameAs "knows"@en } - it's already valid 13:57:18 yes, but it's not clear it is true. 13:57:25 not having a URI here makes the fluent API much much more difficult to use 13:57:32 hey webr3 13:58:17 you'd need clear agreement from linguists for something like foaf:knows owl:sameAs "knows"@en to be more than a hypothesis 13:58:21 but we could relax that, the same way we relaxed the condition on subjects... 13:58:37 I'd prefer the RDF guys to focus on cleaning up literals 13:58:46 whatever 13:59:22 deiu (~andrei@2001:470:8b2d:7d4:706f:c5d7:33c5:fca9) has joined #dig 13:59:22 deiu has quit (Changing host) 13:59:22 deiu (~andrei@unaffiliated/deiu) has joined #dig 13:59:31 n3-2+rules may be very interesting to do :) looking forward to having a stab at that one day 13:59:49 betehess, timbl: I just wrote a (very primitive) proxy for w3c with WebID authentication using WAC ontology 14:00:37 So I have a localhost play server running and I can give WebID authenticated users access to subparts of W3C web sites ( that are public ) 14:01:15 Now all one would need is to be able to map real users to WebID and do some interesting demos 14:02:03 I mean if I could give my server the password of real w3c users then I should be able to authenticate them autmoatically using existing system, when they use WebID. 14:02:20 one could then do more advanced things too... 14:02:34 timbl has quit (Read error: Operation timed out) 14:05:52 It's kind of an interesting way to do demos for existing sites, of how they could look like with WebID enabled... 14:07:41 bblfish, is the meeting set for Friday? 14:08:05 I am just trying to get zakim telecom slot now 14:09:10 this was the time I asked for http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=WebID%2FRWW+teleconf&iso=20121109T16&p1=195&ah=1 14:09:24 our previous meeting is now slashing with LDP groups meeting slot 14:09:33 s/slashing/clashing/ 14:09:40 DIGlogger: pointer? 14:09:40 See http://dig.csail.mit.edu/irc/dig/2012-11-07#T14-09-40 14:10:21 mh, diglogger does not correct s/// 14:10:52 is that ok deiu for you? 14:10:57 Yeah 14:11:17 how was the conf in Boston? 14:11:34 the conf? 14:11:48 was it Semtech you were going to? 14:11:50 ISWC is next week, if that's what you mean 14:12:07 ah ok 14:12:57 betehess: don't know if you saw but there was a lot of pushback on WebID list to some aspects of the new definition of WebID at TPAC 14:13:22 so I sent you an updated version that I could get some agreement on 14:13:36 I'm afraid of what I'll see 14:13:46 not sure I want to loose time there 14:13:47 ( sent that to the WebID list too of course ) 14:13:51 sounds very unproductive to me 14:14:24 I don't have the brain-cycle to process the noise introduced by some 14:14:24 gaining consensus is a complicated task. 14:15:14 it's consensus to please one very lousy guy 14:15:30 anyway, don't have time today for that 14:16:08 There were a few more really I think. Anyway I think the general gist is going in your direction. 14:17:14 if you check the e-mail you'll see it's moving the right way. 14:18:29 link? 14:18:55 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2012Nov/0020.html 14:19:10 bblfish, I'm going to meet kingsley next week 14:19:18 maybe I can talk some sense into him 14:19:35 he agrees with the points in mail above 14:20:01 perhaps if you come to teleconf this Friday we can widen the consensus on this http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=WebID%2FRWW+teleconf&iso=20121109T16&p1=195&ah=1 14:20:51 bblfish, so that's the final hour? 14:20:56 will kingsley be at the conference? 14:21:04 if not, then it's useless 14:21:10 there's a different meetup 14:21:29 he's organizing it 14:21:33 deiu, I think I'll go to this meetup 14:21:42 which meetup? 14:21:43 same 14:21:48 http://www.meetup.com/The-Cambridge-Semantic-Web-Meetup-Group/events/78412762/ 14:22:14 http://www.meetup.com/The-Cambridge-Semantic-Web-Meetup-Group/events/78412762/ 14:22:17 heh 14:22:20 ah good. Well he has one of OpenLink's people who is there. 14:22:21 betehess, good, otherwise I'd be going alone into the wolf's den 14:22:33 I'll see if I can nudge kingsley into coming. 14:26:19 the new definition didn't seem to have a lot to do with SSL 14:26:36 rather, it's a page whose owner can demonstrate control 14:26:46 (via various techniques) 14:26:53 jmvanel (~jmvanel@82.96.114.78.rev.sfr.net) has joined #dig 14:27:57 danbri, if it's the case, then it's good 14:27:59 that's the point danbri. We are trying to seperate the idea of a WebID from SSL 14:28:14 yes, Identity vs Authentication 14:28:24 If I understand right (re new direction), that's where I was heading with http://web.archiveorange.com/archive/v/egAMuIBH6WRojMBKNlOj 'tell-me show-me auth', i.e. a page makes a claim that can be demonstrated 14:28:43 http://microformats.org/wiki/RelMeAuth too 14:29:11 danbri, you were ahead of your time, and it's still very difficult to explain why this is important 14:29:36 WebID is a very nice general name, to 'use up' on a very specific (useful but universally appropriate) protocol technique 14:29:46 are people worried we're 'watering it down' to mean something super-general? 14:30:05 that's the danger. 14:30:35 We need to rename the WebID protocol to WebID Authentication over TLS 14:30:49 WIDAOT! 14:31:11 "Don't be without WIDAOT!"? Not quite so catchy :) but audience is engineers 14:31:53 WIDAOT :-) 14:33:22 the nice thing is that we can claim to have 1 billion WebIDs 14:33:32 but the danger is that people can say it's useless 14:33:50 do not say anything, just show it working 14:34:09 what'd make it seem more concrete, would be software tools that exploit the common abstraction 14:34:51 Would 'paste this random string in your page and tell us when you did, so we can check it' work? 14:35:13 (and the page might be a public access wiki page... that's another level of checks to do) 14:35:58 yes, though then you have people moving away from point and click to pasting and strings, which is more prone to error 14:36:08 and requires more education 14:36:43 perhaps we can just reduce WebID over TLS Auth to WebID Auth 14:37:00 ofter all the others are well known OpenId Auth, or OAuth 14:40:17 The other thing we could do is create a Web Identity Interoperability spec, which shows how the different identity systems can be interlinked 14:40:24 using logic 14:41:48 but who would the interlinking benefit? 14:41:58 all of us 14:42:02 will it make it easier for users, developers, businessy types etc somehow? 14:42:10 through common software? ux? 14:42:12 because i could use an OpenId to login on sites that don't have WebID 14:42:27 you can do that anyway 14:42:28 or with devices I don't want to install a certificate on 14:42:32 using OpenId 14:42:42 that's already possible 14:42:49 ok, vice versa then 14:42:52 it might look like a turf grab 14:42:59 no this is just logic 14:43:11 showing how all these systems can tie into the same ACLs 14:43:12 well, just a prediction 14:43:38 but if you go out there and effectively say OpenID 2 or OAuth 2 are basically WebID, ... 14:43:52 ...without showing some strong value for the rebranding, it'll likely get a lot of pushback 14:43:56 logic or no logic :) 14:44:04 agree. I argued that at TPAC 14:44:12 so that would be a different document 14:44:40 if there is software that shows why calling these things by a common name reflects common implemented tooling, that's vastly more impressive 14:44:48 " Web Identity Interoperability spec" would show how given an ACL with an OpenId it can be verified if all we know is that someone has a WebID 14:47:20 or if the ACL restricts users to people with an foaf:mbox, then we can show how using perhaps WebFinger you can go from a WebID to an mbox principal 14:47:33 etc. etc. 14:47:59 that then shows that authentication is one thing and authorization another one. 14:49:39 I find it difficult to see which of these paths is the right one to follow. 14:49:41 danbri, the point of the new definition was to be able to rely directly on LDP 14:50:18 what's in LDP that makes this an attractive goal? 14:50:28 read-write ? 14:50:35 containers? 14:50:47 RDF everywhere? 14:51:03 standards for all the above? 14:55:53 The WebID as the name of the URL that identifies someone seems like a good idea. Having an (HTTP(s)) URL one can do LDP work also seems right, because that is one that can be linked to - creating linked data. 14:56:41 At the same time saying that you can have a WebID for me is a bit weird. 14:56:59 who amongst potential WebID adopters are those things appealing to? 14:57:02 Usually an ID is something that I possess 14:57:18 14:56 bblfish: At the same time saying that you can have a WebID for me is a bit weird. 14:57:26 yeah, you put your finger on one of the tricky things 14:57:29 danbri, it's appealing to me because it gives me a platform to relies on 14:58:14 so you might expect in a few years that there might be Apache or IBM or whatever LDP implementations 'out of the box' doing much of what you need for an WebID-centric site? 14:58:37 not sure I understand 14:58:47 what kind of numbers are we talking about? thousands/millions/billions? (of users...) 14:59:05 well, a W3C spec is not a 'platform to rely on' directly; you need software too 14:59:08 well, I hope it's "all the Web" 14:59:17 +1 14:59:21 but the hope is that LDP-compatible software will be very useful for WebID 14:59:27 yes, but I don't see the point of this remark 14:59:30 I mean in one installation 14:59:31 yes! 14:59:50 that's what I meant by leveraging LDP 15:00:02 kennyluck has quit (Quit: kennyluck) 15:00:07 ok, just trying to get to the bottom of the appeal 15:00:09 the fact that there is a WG says a lot 15:00:37 and we have already some implementations, willing to comply with the LDP spec 15:03:06 timbl (~timbl@30-5-244.wireless.csail.mit.edu) has joined #dig 15:44:36 scor (~scor@w0052335.mgh.harvard.edu) has joined #dig 15:44:37 scor has quit (Changing host) 15:44:37 scor (~scor@drupal.org/user/52142/view) has joined #dig 16:01:31 people who were present at TPAC http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/tpac/group.n3 16:03:06 cool stuff bblfish :) 16:03:13 I must be missing some still... 16:41:48 Snuupy has quit (Excess Flood) 16:43:11 Snuupy (~Snuupy@2607:5300:20:201::1:3077) has joined #dig 16:45:00 Snuupy has quit (Changing host) 16:45:00 Snuupy (~Snuupy@unaffiliated/snuupy) has joined #dig 16:45:29 danbri: I dont mind what it's called so long as it's not 'WebID -- The Living Standard' -- because that would spell WebID TLS :) 16:46:38 danbrI: yes I think the idea was to split into two specs, one concerned with identity (how to identify someone on the web) one with authentication, which can leverage SSL for example 16:48:19 danbri: Im not sure you can say OpenID 2 or OAuth2 are webid ... how do they define a user or agent? is that even clear? 16:48:39 melvster1: I didn't pay attention to the new proposals. do you believe that they are still ok with this goal? 16:48:44 TLS :) 16:49:15 have a look at relmeauth 16:50:33 betehess: first of all i think all the proposals we have are both OK, and an improvement, in so far as we've decoupled webid from having a public key and that is deferred now to webid auth ... I personally think it's all good ... I know exactly the technology i need to get things done and the properties, namely URIs, linked data, opacity, universality, tolerance, independent invention ... the axioms of the web are the same ... naming i can live w 16:55:30 danbri: I think all the identity systems inc. OpenID, OAuth, WebID, Persona, SAML etc. should consider that identity has 3 parts ... identification / authentication / authorization ... a good system will have a clean modular design and a separation of concerns between these three concepts, and even more importantly the key terms should be clearly defined 16:56:34 there are examples of identity that have no authentication by default, three I can think of are, the postal service, the telephone and email 16:57:56 not saying any of those 3 are perfect, or even good, but a well designed system tends to be clean and modular, loosely coupled 17:00:09 +1 17:05:59 what would it take, for folk here to consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Fry a WebID for the person it describes? 17:06:47 note e.g. that it informally describes his twitter account, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Fry#Twitter ... which is something you could check control of 17:06:59 he's on dbpedia too ;) 17:07:18 and that's a photo of him i added :P 17:09:09 thankfully twitter have dispensed with hash bangs https://twitter.com/stephenfry 17:11:15 danbri: are you considering the http-range-14 here? would be nice to align our design on the one of schema.org while we're at it 17:12:33 danbri: I think the advice you gave facebook, ie to put a # on the end in the turtle, was very good and pragmatic 17:12:46 OpenID doesn't care about differentiating the peron and the page describing the person for example 17:13:48 scor: the web has a principle of tolerance ... if you can more or less determine what someone means you dont have to be too strict ... but to avoid ambiguity people should be encouraged to follow standards where possible 17:17:28 it's often advantageous to be able to split a page up into multiple parts each with a subject, e.g. if you want to get a whole schema with a single GET, or if you have a number of financial transactions in, say, the form of a statement 17:17:59 the one subject per page is an example of clean design for the most part, but there are certainly cases where that is not efficient, imho 17:22:05 danbri: I think if the wikipedia page is a WebID for Stephen Fry, then we have really lost all sense of this being something one can use to authenticate with. 17:22:36 then one can wonder why one should create a special class of Agent URIs at all 17:22:54 anyway here is the teleconf for WebID/RWW/SocialWeb http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2012Nov/0023.html 17:23:08 for the after TPAC meeting 17:24:31 This friday 15:00-16:00 UTC 17:29:21 anyway those are tricky issues 18:17:40 bblfish; what if the claim within the wikipedia page that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Fry#it has :account https://twitter.com/stephenfry was robust (by community review processes, etc.) against malicious changes? 18:18:09 then the person it describes - namely Stephen Fry - could use it for logging in, couldn't he? 18:18:24 much as we use openid by delegation today; or as relmeauth is proposed. 18:18:39 that would fit the new definition of WebID that I gave, since it is 1) a URL 2) it refers to an Agent 3) the description is inverse functional 18:19:14 but usually people thing of an ID being something the person who owns the ID shows to someone... So we're kind of missing that part in the definition 18:19:58 So it's a marketing issue then 18:20:17 Is it interesting to name URI's that describe Agents. 18:20:21 ? 18:20:34 Or is it more interesting to name an authentication method built into the browsers? 18:20:49 that in one click identifies you. 18:20:57 if you want to be identified 18:22:10 what about control over resource used to identify somebody? 18:22:26 I am not sure that is the important bit 18:22:42 say if your workplace controls your work identity 18:22:50 or the Government controls your gov identity 18:23:09 I suppose you control it too, since there are legal methods to change it... 18:23:29 yes but this identify "workplace stuff" and "government stuff" not me 18:23:46 you can be part of a larger agent 18:24:15 true but is another agent 18:24:23 no rszeno: you are many agents 18:25:19 anyway, you can be rszeno@work, rszeno@freedombox .... 18:25:30 not realy, at one moment i want to make the difference between multiple identities of same me 18:25:49 ok, that's sidetracking 18:26:15 what I want to know is with WebID there is the responsibility of the owner of the private key to take care of it... 18:26:26 i can control some of them but not all 18:26:36 is it such a responsibility that makes identity personal 18:26:42 ? 18:27:18 it does not really matter what the WebID PRofile is 18:27:36 if you have a private key and give it to a thief then you are in part responsible for something 18:28:33 even if the private key now matches that WebID 18:28:38 profile 18:28:43 public key 18:29:33 that private key can no longer be used to identify you. So when giving out a WebID there is a responsibility that you take on that you will take care of the private key - to some degree. 18:30:00 yes but for legal considerations some of identities can't be controled. Like in your example the government can limit my ability to change things in what i have and they control so they must control the identity 18:30:38 yes, but if they give you a gov WebID it will come with the provision that you take care of the private key, and notify them if it gets lost 18:31:13 because otherwise the description on the web is no longer correct. It no longer identifies you, but the thief 18:31:49 and the thief could use this to harm you or others. 18:32:07 now say we use other auth systems, 18:32:15 say http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Fry#it describes where Stephen Fry lives 18:32:33 and I can now authenticte steven by sending him a snail mail 18:32:40 melvster (~melvin@p5797EE95.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined #dig 18:32:42 bblfish, can we please discuss this during the teleconf on Fri? :) 18:32:57 agree, but also the gov must have control of identity in case i'm not responsable, :) 18:33:04 I want to follow the discussion but I have to work at the same time 18:33:12 deiu I added that to the topics for discussion 18:33:15 melvster1 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) 18:33:48 deiu: yes, I am not quite clear about this part... So if we come to a conclusion we can summarise it during teleconf 18:34:02 ok 18:34:51 so now I need to work out how I can go from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Fry#it to address authentication 18:35:03 perhaps openid auth is easier 18:35:21 foaf:openid from my point of view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Fry#it is only a description of a resource not something you can use for identification. Stephen Fry have limited control over what wikipedia editors say about him 18:36:18 rszeno: I think there is something to that intuition. 18:36:25 but it's difficult to work out what is missing. 18:36:34 is it just control? 18:36:42 is it responsibility? 18:36:55 Does stephen fry have to know about his WebID somehow 18:37:02 perhaps that is it. 18:37:23 Just like knowledge requires belief of the knower, so an ID requires the referred person to know about his ID? 18:38:39 S knows that P <-> p & S believes that P & if p were not the case then S would not believe that p 18:39:39 so rszeno I think one could argue that for an ID the owner needs to at least know that ID 18:40:03 because otherwise the whole privacy talk of "controlling your identity" is not going to make sense 18:41:52 this i what i said, or indent to say, :) 18:42:18 rszeno a uri is a name or a reference, it is not a description, it is perfectly legitimate to use that name to identify someone or something 18:42:24 ownership and control 18:42:40 So a WebID is 1) a URL that refers to an agent determinately 2) the agent knows the webid to refer to himself 18:43:12 melvster, we talk about webid and authentication? 18:43:35 perhaps 3) the agent refered to can prove he his the referent of 3) 18:43:38 bblfish: that means one cannot create a URI to denote someone else who does not have a WebID? 18:44:00 scor: no you can create a URI to refer to someone, but then it would not be a WebID 18:44:22 I am just trying to build in some notion of identity that privacy folks will understand 18:44:47 bblfish: agreed 18:45:09 because most likely no one will attempt to use that as WebID anyways 18:45:09 perhaps we could have the folloiwing 18:47:17 I doubt it's worth considering an example in which you're dealing with public space, that everyone can control (limited in the case of Wikipedia) 18:47:52 1) a WebID URI is a URL that refers to an agent determinately ( ie: distinguishes him from all other agents ) 2) the agent referred to should be able to prove his being the referent of that URI 3) the agent knows his WebID 18:48:09 the premise of WebID authentication is that user information can only be controlled by the user himself 18:48:35 deiu, yes, but those examples danbri proposed are good ones, as they help us develop what a WebID is 18:49:02 ie, our initial definition allows everything to be a WebID 18:49:04 silly question: what's the point of saying "URL" if the intent of retrieving some RDF is not there? 18:49:25 betehess: I did not add all the rdf stuff up there cause I only have 10 fingers to type 18:49:26 indeed betehess 18:49:35 ah, ok 18:49:39 :-) 18:49:39 just wanted to check 18:49:59 I can't think without RDF anymore so don't worry about that :-) 18:50:27 it's pointless unless the authentication service dereferences the URL 18:51:14 sometimes it's good to let people walking in circles for a while, until they realize what's happening :-) 18:51:25 yes, so the URL can be dereferenced. We are taking TPAC definition ( close to it) and adding some features to make it clear that there is a relation between the referred person and the URL where the referred to person in some sense controlls the id 18:52:06 that was not in the TPAC definition 18:52:26 yes, I agree with that 18:52:56 The TPAC definition did not even say what comes back in the RDF - I added earlier that the description at the URL has to be uniquely identifying 18:53:49 so WebID - URL + Identifying description at URL Location + referent being an Agent that knows or controls something about the WebID 18:54:21 the "what" is not necessary, except for RDF 18:54:47 the ultimate plan is to s/Turtle/whatever LDP says/ 18:54:54 just too soon 18:55:01 betehess: +1 18:55:06 yes, that's the syntax. But the content was not specified 18:55:07 amy (~amy@30-6-207.wireless.csail.mit.edu) has joined #dig 18:55:11 Joe? 18:55:17 care to chat w/ TimBL? 18:56:12 that is what does the WebID Profile return? Nothing ? Will an empty graph do ? Or somehting? What? 18:57:06 so we used to have it that the graph contains the referents public key. 18:57:21 now I propose to extend it to: "The WebID when dereferenced MUST return a document/representation that describes the URL referent uniquely." 18:57:28 where uniquely is a definite description 18:58:22 ( a term that comes from philosophy of names btw ) 18:58:25 the intent was already there, when we said "... denotes a Person/Agent" 18:58:30 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/names/ 18:58:44 amy, Joe Presbrey? 18:58:55 he's on the couch 18:58:56 or group? 18:59:00 yes, the intent was there. but it is worth making explicit 18:59:01 hi Andrei, great, tx :) 18:59:25 because otherwise people will say: this uri denotes a person but nobody knows it or has any idea 18:59:29 amy, I passed the message 18:59:30 and then any URI could be a WebID 19:00:13 thanks! :) 19:00:21 nice you're getting to hang w/ him :) 19:01:16 so now you have a WebID URI that identifies an agent. But we still miss the point of the referent ( the identified agent ) knowing or controlling the identity. 19:01:36 that was not in TPAC - I did bring it up though if you check the minutes 19:01:37 :-) 19:01:42 bblfish: what people wants to do with the URI (eg. authentication, authorization, etc.) does not matter 19:01:51 I don't understand your last point 19:02:04 " we still miss the point of the referent ( the identified agent ) knowing or controlling the identity" 19:02:09 betehess: But then what has that got to do with an Identity system which privacy people speak about when they say you must control your identity 19:02:34 that's up to what people wants to do with it 19:02:37 so you want to create the notion of an identity that most people who speak about identity have no use for? 19:02:45 if does not have to be about privacy 19:03:05 so why bother calling it a WebID? 19:03:13 Why not just say: a URL about a person 19:03:22 because it's only about identity? 19:03:28 on the Web (URL) 19:03:30 every URI is about reference 19:03:35 sure 19:03:42 and so why not create a URL for cheeses 19:03:43 I don't feel like I need to know more 19:04:01 WebID is a unique identifier, which only points to a single person/agent 19:04:02 We could create a class of cheese urls and give it a name 19:04:05 well, we already have "denotes a Person/Agent" 19:04:24 ok. So why bring in the RDF graph then? 19:04:26 hence the whole discussion about hash fragments 19:04:40 look, I'm just saying that the current definition already captures what we need 19:05:25 yes, the hash fragment makes explicit the difference between the abstraction and the document that you GET 19:05:37 so then is a WebID for Stephen Fry? 19:05:50 even if he does not know about it? 19:05:56 or control it 19:05:57 that's an expectation that lets you speak about this Identity: it exists on the web through the document 19:06:03 so what? 19:06:17 by the latest definition it is 19:06:24 yes 19:06:27 I'm fine with it 19:06:29 it doesn't mean that it can be used for authentication 19:06:33 exactly 19:06:58 nor that I will trust it :-) 19:06:59 so what have you gained by calling it a WebID 19:07:07 why not just say a URL for stephen fry 19:07:31 because I know Stephen Fry is a person just by looking at the URL 19:07:45 say I write down your name and a description of you on a piece of paper here. CAn I then say I have your id? 19:07:45 you solve http-range-14 per definition, and you set expectation on GETting some RDF 19:08:01 you don't have my id 19:08:07 you're just speaking about an id 19:08:08 you have _an_ id 19:08:10 yes, I have a piece of paper that describes you 19:08:18 so you say 19:08:21 proove it :-) 19:08:24 I don't even have AN ID 19:08:29 it does not matter 19:08:49 I think it's about _an_ id vs _the_ id 19:08:53 what you do with this id is not important at this point 19:08:58 well I still have a question why don't you say URI 19:09:05 you don't need a new concept 19:09:13 you can say there is a URI for stephen fry 19:09:20 and all is good 19:09:29